Researchers present a new model for what dark matter might be

Dark matter is all around us. Though no one has ever seen it, and no one knows what it really is, indisputable physical calculations state that approximately 27% of the universe is dark matter. Only five % is the matter of which all known materials consist; from the smallest ant to the largest galaxy.

For decades, researchers have tried to detect this invisible dark matter. Several types of devices have been put up on Earth and in space to capture the particles that dark matter is supposed to consist of, and experiments have attempted to create a dark matter particle by colliding ordinary matter particles at very high temperatures.

If such a collision should one day succeed, we would however not be able to directly see the produced dark matter particle. It would immediately pass on and fly away from the detectors - but it will take some energy with it, and this energy loss will be recorded and indicate that a dark particle had been produced.

Despite all these initiatives no dark particle has yet been detected.

"Maybe it's because we have looked after dark particles in a way that will never be able to reveal them. Maybe dark matter is of a different character and needs to be looked for in a different way," says Martin Sloth, associate professor at The Centre for Cosmology and Particle Physics Phenomenology (CP3-Origins), University of Southern Denmark.

Together with his postdoc McCullen Sandora from CP3-Origins and postdoc Mathias Garny from CERN, he now presents a new model for what dark matter might be in the journal Physical Review Letters.

For decades, physicists have been working on the theory that dark matter is light and therefore interacts weakly with ordinary matter. This means that the particles are capable of being produced in colliders. This theory's dark particles are called weakly-interacting massive particles (WIMPs), and they are theorized to have been created in an inconceivably large number shortly after the birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago.

"But since no experiments have ever seen even a trace of a WIMP, it could be that we should look for a heavier dark particle that interacts only by gravity and thus would be impossible to detect directly," says Martin Sloth.

Sloth and his colleagues call their version of such a heavy particle a PIDM particle (Planckian Interacting Dark Matter).

In their new model, they calculated how the required number of PIDM particles could have been created in the early universe.

"It was possible, if it was extremely hot. To be more precise the temperatures in the early universe must have been the highest possible in the Big Bang theory," says Sloth.

Whether this was the case or not can be tested. He explains further:

"If the universe indeed was as hot as calculated in our model, several gravitational waves from the very early childhood of the universe would have been created. We might be able to find out in the near future."

With this Sloth refers to a number of planned experiments around the world that will be able to detect signals from very early gravitational waves.

"If these experiments do not detect such signals, then our model will be falsified. Thus gravitational waves can be used to test our model," he says.

More than 10 different experiments are planned. They aim to measure the polarization of the cosmic background radiation, either from the ground or with instruments sent up in a balloon or satellite to avoid atmospheric disturbances.

Dark matter and dark energy

27% of the universe is believed to consist of dark matter. Dark matter is thought to be the gravitational "glue" that binds the galaxies together. No one knows what dark matter actually is.

5% the universe consists of known material such as atoms and subatomic particles.

The rest of the universe is believed to consist of dark energy. Dark energy is believed to be responsible for the current rate of the expansion of the universe.

Related Stories

The origin of matter in the universe has puzzled physicists for generations. Today, we know that matter only accounts for 5% of our universe; another 25% is constituted of dark matter. And the remaining 70% is made up of ...

For years physicists have been looking for the universe's elusive dark matter, but so far no one has seen any trace of it. Maybe we are looking in the wrong place? Now physicists from University of Southern Denmark propose ...

Physicists suggest a new way to look for dark matter: They believe that dark matter particles annihilate into so-called dark radiation when they collide. If true, then we should be able to detect the signals from this radiation.

It's a beautiful theory: the standard model of cosmology describes the universe using just six parameters. But it is also strange. The model predicts that dark matter and dark energy – two mysterious entities that have ...

(Phys.org)—The fundamental constants of nature—such as the speed of light, Planck's constant, and Newton's gravitational constant—are thought to be constant in time, as their name suggests. But scientists have questioned ...

Recommended for you

A team of scientists has detected a hidden state of electronic order in a layered material containing lanthanum, barium, copper, and oxygen (LBCO). When cooled to a certain temperature and with certain concentrations of barium, ...

A team of researchers from the U.S., New Zealand and Norway has used computer simulations to predict several characteristics of the heaviest element, oganesson. In their paper published in the journal Physical Review Letters, ...

Researchers at the Center for Quantum Nanoscience within the Institute for Basic Science (IBS) have made a major breakthrough in controlling the quantum properties of single atoms. In an international collaboration with IBM ...

A team of researchers led by the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory has demonstrated a new method for splitting light beams into their frequency modes. The scientists can then choose the frequencies they ...

A team of researchers from several institutions in Japan has described a physical system that can be described as existing above "absolute hot" and also below absolute zero. In their paper published in the journal Physical ...

If they exist, axions, among the candidates for dark matter particles, could interact with the matter comprising the universe, but at a much weaker extent than previously theorized. New, rigorous constraints on the properties ...

Whether or not DM is the correct explanation for the observed anomaly of galaxies rotating faster and clusters lensing more than the known baryonic matter could produce, calling that explanation "indisputable" is incorrect.

The mere fact that DM is disputed shows that it is not "indisputable", REGARDLESS of whether the other explanations are right, wrong (or so bad as to be not even wrong).

Reminds me of an earlier post - Speaking of time - Yes it only flows in one direction for matter but the opposite for antimatter. And we inhabit the same universe. So some antimatter and backwards time really is observed out there. Interesting consequence - reversing the EM field reverses the direction of motion of an electron so it appears as a positron. Unless nature is pulling a trick on us, reversing the gravitational field reverses the motion of a hydrogen atom so it appears as anti-hydrogen. As a consequence there is plenty of anti-hydrogen out there but it avoids us as much as possible. Good thing too else we wouldn't be around to talk about it. Nature is smarter than you think. Read more at: Physicists split on ideas expressed in Hawking's latest black hole paper (Phys.org)—It has been nearly a month since, Stephen Hawking, Malcolm Perry and Andrew Strominger uploaded a paper to the arXiv preprint server that described a… PHYS.ORG

Whether or not DM is the correct explanation for the observed anomaly of galaxies rotating faster and clusters lensing more than the known baryonic matter could produce, calling that explanation "indisputable" is incorrect

What is indisputable is that, given present understanding of gravitation, there must be quantifiably more mass-energy than is reconcilable from matter that radiates EM. This is all that is being stated. DM is just representative of this statement. There is as much proof that GR is wrong as there is that DM tastes like chicken.

@seeker, Time is no more than a conceptual relation between physical systems, that is defined for that purpose. Time is not a physical field or particle or force that is involved in any dynamics, ....apart from its use as a concept in relating physical systems.

That positrons could be explained as electrons traveling backwards in time, came from Feynman (or Wheeler?) and his quaint notion that the reason electrons are all identical is because there is really only one electron in the universe traveling back and forth through time and space.

This was more amusing than an actual hypothesis. However, it IS true that positrons can be described as electrons traveling backward in time,... emphasize 'described', as time here is only a relative concept dependent on a defined system, and is not an element itself in the dynamics.

For the record, DM, antimatter and flow of time are all unrelated, at least to the limits of our understanding.

Also, DM is not a theory that is in need of a proof of existance, it is only a label tagged on something we know to be existing. Since the effect we see appears to be one of gravitation, and gravitation, for all we know, is always tied to some form of matter, scientists assume it is some unknown form of matter. Since we have not yet been able to detect this matter with any kind of electromagnetic wave such as light, it is named 'dark'. Hence the name - and it really is not more than that - 'dark matter'.

Technically, a more concise name could have been 'stuff-that-causes-gravitation-like-effect-in-excess-of-expectations-but-for-some-unknown-reason-cannot-be-detected'. But, apart from the fact that there still would be nutshells disputing it's existance, it would have been slightly more awkward than just 'dark matter'.

"Dark matter is all around us. Though no one has ever seen it, and no one knows what it really is, indisputable physical calculations state that approximately 27% of the universe is dark matter. Only five % is the matter of which all known materials consist; from the smallest ant to the largest galaxy."

Very strange claim. This sounds like some kind of cult instead of science and is squeezing the eyelids with anger before the scientific facts.

Right, and you can see that from looking in a mirror? Or does this missing mass thing on Earth work only with "ants"?

But, apart from the fact that there still would be nutshells disputing it's existance,

You mean like looking in a mirror & wondering why I can't see 80-95% of me (or an "ant" creeping along on the ground)? Why would looking in a mirror, or at an "ant", and not wondering where the remaining 80-95% of the rest of it is, make anyone a "nutshell"? Maybe Zwicky is the "nutshell"? Do some gravity calculations for that ant or yourself.

@Benni: Apparently only 5% of the meaning of my posting is visible to you. It already contains all relevant parts of the information that you are asking for. You might want to read up on Dark Matter and Dark Energy on reliable sources. There are plenty of articles on this site and elsewhere explaining how it's currently being detected (indirectly), and where, approximately, its located (hint: mostly not near us, so your funny mirror joking doesn't work at all)

As for "wondering why I can't see 80-95% of me", for one nobody said that part of you, specifically, is dark matter. Two, it cannot be located on short range. If you would consider reading up on the topics you like to discuss about, it would be obvious.

@Benni: Apparently only 5% of the meaning of my posting is visible to you.

Apparently you have yet to read what the Author wrote, give that a try, after all I quoted him.

As for "wondering why I can't see 80-95% of me", for one nobody said that part of you, specifically, is dark matter.

You should attune your reading habits to what the author wrote, here I'll quote for you again: "Only five % is the matter of which all known materials consist; from the smallest ant to the largest galaxy."

Two, it cannot be located on short range. If you would consider reading up on the topics you like to discuss about, it would be obvious.

Again, read what the Author wrote, he mentioned nothing about "cannot be located on short range", in fact he was so specific that he stated: "from the smallest ant to the largest galaxy."

Hey slash, "ants" are pretty "short range" from where I'm sitting, a few feet with no galaxies in between.

@Benni:I did read. Did you? Nothing in that statement you quoted twice mentions that any ant only consists of 5% known matter. To the contrary, it pretty much states that the ant as a whole is known matter!

And no, the author did not refer to range. Because he did not talk about the method of detection, only about ratios.

So this would be DM guess ver.134.879.... How many different postulations are required to falsify this pathetic attempt at keeping gravity as the only force of consequence at large scales? Hell, it only took one misguided attempt to "prove" there was no ether, and the results weren't even null.

This overtly religious, obsessively faithful dogmatic approach to foist fairy dust and magical entities in to science is getting absolutely ridiculous. How many abject failures and billions of dollars must be wasted on these pseudoscientific charlatans of science? Absolutely pathetic!

@Benni:I did read. Did you? Nothing in that statement you quoted twice mentions that any ant only consists of 5% known matter. To the contrary, it pretty much states that the ant as a whole is known matter!

And no, the author did not refer to range. Because he did not talk about the method of detection, only about ratios.

@ slash........."he did not talk about the method of detection", so then how does he know 80-95% of the mass of the "ant" is missing if he did not apply a "method of detection"? Or maybe he was actually referring to ants in another galaxy?

Come on here guy, get the narrative straight........maybe next you can explain to us how Einstein was able to employ his Field Equations to quantify the mass of the Sun to calculate Photon Deflection in that section of General Relativity within 0.02% of error. He did that 20 years before Zwicky came up with his gravity laden cosmic fairy dust.

@cantdrive: the term is hypothesis, not guess, and it is the essence of the scientific method. If that is not for you, I suggest you go back up your tree, because computers don't exist, and you're only dreaming this anyway.

Well slash, there it is again, quoted directly from the text of the article. You're certainly having a reading problem aren't you?

So smarten up the rest of us dummies here who got no further than Differential Equations in our science based studies, tell us all about the "detection method" for calculating the missing mass of the author's "ant". You can do that for us?

The author never said this. Perhaps English is not your first language? In any case you're definitely misreading that quote, as it is categorically NOT implying in any way that there is any missing matter of which an ant is composed .

The author never said this. Perhaps English is not your first language? In any case you're definitely misreading that quote, as it is categorically NOT implying in any way that there is any missing matter of which an ant is composed .

"Only five % is the matter of which all known materials consist; from the smallest ant to the largest galaxy."

AMAZING....above again is the author's quote...........so tell me, what was the math course I missed? Or am I guilty of neglecting the concept that faith based science is not subject to the concept of mathematical & GR scrutiny, therefore Zwicky's DM cosmic fairy dust gets a pass.

So I ask again: What was the detection method used on these earthbound "ants"?

@cantdrive: the term is hypothesis, not guess, and it is the essence of the scientific method. If that is not for you, I suggest you go back up your tree, because computers don't exist, and you're only dreaming this anyway.

The essence of the scientific method is to cast aside failed hypotheses when they are shown to be wrong. Not continuously changing the guesses to ever more ridiculous postulations due to repeated failures to find the fairy dust. The ones who are dreaming are the purveyors magic fairy dust and all powerful black monsters.

More on time - As I understand Einstein, time expands similar to space, and with similar symmetry. I think Feynman came as close as anyone to grasping this symmetry. Per Feynman, antimatter travels backwards in time. Meaning, I suppose, back to the beginning of time when it was pure energy. So at the Big Bang antimatter was recycled back into energy, which fuels the expansion in space. So antimatter created at baryogenesis was recycled. It is still being recycled when it is created in pair production, fueling more expansion, but it currently takes 13.7 billion years to get back to baryogenesis. Antimatter created 1 billion years ago can be observed for another 11.7 billion years before it expends its 12.7 billion year lifetime. Tricky mathematics.

What is indisputable is that, given present understanding of gravitation, there must be quantifiably more mass-energy than is reconcilable from matter that radiates EM.

Even then 'indiputable' is too strong.First, even if something is proven beyond any reasonable doubt, a fool could still dispute it (there are still apparently people who dispute that the earth is round, for example).

Second, while the cause being gravitational is a reasonable hypothesis, it could also be some non-gravitational attraction / warping of space (GR does not prohibit this).

Third, even if the cause is gravitational, missing matter is just one possibility; it could also be that we don't understand gravity (e.g., MOND).

DM is the LEADING hypothesis, and it is supported by several lines of reasoning.

I known of NOTHING in science that is 'indisputable' (even "I think, therefore I am" CAN be disputed by an unreasonable person).

"Only five % is the matter of which all known materials consist; from the smallest ant to the largest galaxy."

AMAZING....above again is the author's quote...........so tell me, what was the math course I missed?

You are missed or misunderstood LOGIC ( or reading comprehension in English).

95% of the universe could be DM and an ant could still have almost no DM because the DISTRIBUTIONS do NOT have to be the same.

The density of known ordinary matter in the universe is roughly one atom for every four cubic meters, so if there is four times as much dark matter it AVERAGES the equivalent of one atom-worth of mass per cubic meter.

Now let's look at the simplest case. Suppose DM is evenly spread throughout the universe. In this case unless you have a mighty big ant, you should not even expect a mass of dark matter equal to a single atom in the entire ant.

Now let's look at a case approximating an actual DM hypothesis - a galactic halo

For the record - I see dark matter as being entropic gravity, that is the negative gradient of the dark energy. A singularity is the complete absence of dark energy - that is, spacetime completely filled with normal matter. You might call it infinite solidarity I guess.

The most commonly hypothesized galactic DM halo is denser toward the center of the galaxy, with a density that drops off slowly from the center so most of its mass is in the outer reaches of the galaxy. At our distance from the center of the galaxy the figures I have seen are ~~100,000 times denser than the universal average. That density is the equivalent of 100,000 atoms/m3 or one atom per 10 cm3. That is still bigger than the biggest ant in the world, so you should still not expect to find even a single atom's worth of DM in your ant.

Do you understand now how DM COULD make up more of the universe than normal matter and still not be detectable in your ant?

If you still don't understand, then consider that the earth as a whole is roughly 1/3 iron. Does that mean that every ant is 1/3 iron? Of course not.

Or consider that the solar system is roughly 3/4 hydrogen by mass - does that mean that an ant must be 3/4 hydrogen by mass? Again, of course not.

95% of the universe could be DM and an ant could still have almost no DM because the DISTRIBUTIONS do NOT have to be the same.

How do you know that?

Tell me you have some detection devices laying around in your workshop so we head out into an open field somewhere to check out a few "ants" to verify your guesswork?

Or maybe you have some math? Einstein Field Equations would be just as applicable for calculating the mass of an "ant" as for the Sun, a "mass calculation" Einstein needed to do before he could calculate the angle of Photon Deflection as one passes the immediate peripheral disk of the Sun. I guess you didn't know Einstein did this 20 years before Zwicky concocted his cosmic fairy dust, which is the reason Zwicky was at least smart enough to keep his DM fantasies far beyond our solar system.

What's the matter with you DM Enthusiasts? You can't put up a cogent argument except to scream names at people who challenge you to prove your fantasies.

Whether or not DM is the correct explanation for the observed anomaly of galaxies rotating faster and clusters lensing more than the known baryonic matter could produce, calling that explanation "indisputable" is incorrect.

The mere fact that DM is disputed shows that it is not "indisputable", REGARDLESS of whether the other explanations are right, wrong (or so bad as to be not even wrong).

The correct way to dispute that the calculations are indisputable is to dispute them.So be my guest.

To be fair, the writer said 'ants' were made from same ordinary material which, in total represents (according to previous estimates/hypothesis) only 5% of gravitating matter; with remainder (only hypothesized as) 'dark and exotic' non-baryonic matter.

NOTE: Previous/old estimates/hypotheses by mainstream were invoked to 'explain' galaxy rotation curve/cluster motion assumptions which may NOT be as tenable NOW as they may have seemed decades ago when first made. We NOW have reason to believe that INCORRECT extrapolation of gravitational profiles were used at galaxy/cluster scales to initially construct the 'expected rotation curve' and 'expected cluster gravitation' profiles/models.

95% of the universe could be DM and an ant could still have almost no DM because the DISTRIBUTIONS do NOT have to be the same.

How do you know that? Tell me you have some detection devices laying around in your workshop

Benni - you are again showing either a lack of logic or a lack of reading comprehension.I did NOT say that the distributions are NOT the same, I merely pointed out that:1) Your argument on 80% of an ant being dark matter ASSUMES that the ratio of DM to normal matter in the universe ARE the same, and 2) The mainstream model of dark matter that you are disputing does NOT have the distributions the same, so your ant argument is not relevant to the mainstream theories of DM.

Do you deny that some theories of DM have distributions that do not match the distribution of normal matter?

95% of the universe could be DM and an ant could still have almost no DM because the DISTRIBUTIONS do NOT have to be the same.

How do you know that? Tell me you have some detection devices laying around in your workshop

Benni - you are again showing either a lack of logic or a lack of reading comprehension.I did NOT say that the distributions are NOT the same, I merely pointed out that:1) Your argument on 80% of an ant being dark matter ASSUMES that the ratio of DM to normal matter in the universe ARE the same

.....I'M NOT THE ONE TO BRING UP THE "ANT", IT WAS THE AUTHOR.

2) The mainstream model of dark matter that you are disputing does NOT have the distributions the same, so your ant argument is not relevant to the mainstream theories of DM.

Why do you continue having such a reading problem, the "ant argument" is that of the AUTHOR. Just why won't you give due credit the AUTHOR with what he said about "ants"?

You mean like ... looking in a mirror & wondering why I can't see 80-95% of me (or an "ant" creeping along on the ground)? Why would looking in a mirror, or at an "ant", and not wondering where the remaining 80-95% of the rest of it is...

What the author said is:

Only five % is the matter of which all known materials consist; from the smallest ant to the largest galaxy

The author is saying that all known materials (including ants), consist of normal matter, but that normal matter is only 5% of the universe as a whole.

The author is NOT saying that ants are only 5% normal matter, but that the UNIVERSE as a WHOLE is only 5% normal matter, and that ants are an example of normal matter.

I agree that it is not well written, but other commenters understood it (Noumenon tried to explain this to you).

Not quite - your body has a lot of hydrogen atoms in it, and some of those have never been in a star.

RS,Benni is just word-playing.He's peeing his pants with delight at the thought that he tricked someone way smarter than he into playing along with him...he prob'ly doesn't have a lot of friends in real-life, either...

We can only escape this eventual fate through the gravitational attraction of black holes caused by crowding out the vacuum energy by quantized units of matter. As the dark energy or vacuum energy runs out, if indeed it does run out, the energy density of antimatter becomes greater than that of the vacuum energy and antimatter begins to accumulate similar to normal matter. It will also eventually be sucked back into the black holes. You wouldn't want to be around at that time. Until that occurs, the universe of antimatter would most likely be a very strange place. Yes black holes radiate but evaporate I don't think so as long as their energy density is greater than that of the vacuum energy.

Understand vacuum energy or dark energy produces pressure, resulting in pair production, with virtual particles trapped inside the Higgs field potential well or if there is sufficient energy density becoming real particles. Quantized matter produces no such pressure, so the vacuum energy density in regions of matter is less than that away from matter, resulting in a net pressure pressing into the regions of quantized matter. Call it gravity. Without dark energy there can be no gravity and the whole U evaporates.

The essence of the scientific method is to cast aside failed hypotheses when they are shown to be wrong.

Indeed, and that is why the researchers put aside existing hypothesis' (plural) and formulated a new one.

You appear to be thinking that dark matter as such is the hypothesis. It is not, as I have pointed out in my very first posting in this thread. The matter we can detect directly doesn't add up to the total amount required to explain our measurements. So researchers try and come up with hypothethis about the nature of whatever is causing that discrepancy. It's like seeing light without a source, and then coming up with a hypothesis about what might be causing it. Dark matter is the same: we see the effect, but not what is causing it.

The essence of the scientific method is to cast aside failed hypotheses when they are shown to be wrong.

Indeed, and that is why the researchers put aside existing hypothesis' (plural) and formulated a new one.

You appear to be thinking that dark matter as such is the hypothesis. It is not, as I have pointed out in my very first posting in this thread. The matter we can detect directly doesn't add up to the total amount required to explain our measurements. So researchers try and come up with hypothethis about the nature of whatever is causing that discrepancy. It's like seeing light without a source, and then coming up with a hypothesis about what might be causing it. Dark matter is the same: we see the effect, but not what is causing it.

RS,Benni is just word-playing.He's peeing his pants with delight at the thought that he tricked someone way smarter than he into playing along with him...he prob'ly doesn't have a lot of friends in real-life, either...

Benni is much like JVK was - he consistently misinterprets things in a manner that would either supports his views, or that would make an opposing view easy to attack.

In this case an ant or a person being only 5% dark matter matches his previous claims that imply dark matter having to match matter's local distribution, such as:

What's to "explain"? Do you imagine you're looking in a mirror and 84.5% of you is not there?

So Benni was clearly going to repeat this misinterpretation until someone showed conclusively that it is wrong.

Then after Slash and Noumenon kindly pointed out Benni's mistake, Benni himself obstinately asked:

The essence of the scientific method is to cast aside failed hypotheses when they are shown to be wrong.

Indeed, and that is why the researchers put aside existing hypothesis' (plural) and formulated a new one.

You appear to be thinking that dark matter as such is the hypothesis. It is not, as I have pointed out in my very first posting in this thread. The matter we can detect directly doesn't add up to the total amount required to explain our measurements. So researchers try and come up with hypothethis about the nature of whatever is causing that discrepancy.

DM is the failed fairy dust hypothesis. It's an abject failure to understand the nature of the matter being studied. DM is completely unnecessary to explain our Universe, all aspects of the shortcomings of the standard model that relies on magic fairy dust can simply be explained by acknowledging the electrodynamic properties of the plasma that pervades the Universe. Ignorance is why DM is necessary.

@cantthink:Among scientists, DM is the favored hypothesis to explain most of the discrepancies that were exposed by measurements and calculations. It's not perfect, it's not proven, and we don't know the details, but for now it's the best we have.

If you consider this fairy dust, fine with me. FYI, I'm typing this comment on fairy dust.

all aspects of the shortcomings of the standard model that relies on [DM] can simply be explained by acknowledging the electrodynamic properties of the plasma that pervades the Universe

@cdand if you could actually provide at least a modicum of evidence supporting this claim, we would all be praising your name along with all your electrical engineer con-artist cult leaders at the next Nobel award winners presentation

in fact, if you had any evidence at all, you would be able to publish it in a reputable peer reviewed journal and become an astrophysicist

you would not be bloging it to a pseudoscience site, posting it to a comment thread or making false claims on random sites without moderation (because a moderated site not run by a pseudoscience cult would require evidence to support a claim)

The matter we can detect directly doesn't add up to the total amount required to explain our measurements.

"Measurements"? Of what? What instrument has been used to detect anything about DM Cosmic Fairy Dust? And don't try to claim OBSERVATION is the same as MEASUREMENT. I work in a test lab facility & I can't tell you one thing about how much ampere flow there is in a conductor unless I put a measurement device into the circuit & actually get a reading measuring the current flow, I can't do it by putting the conductor under the observation of a microscope.

So researchers try and come up with hypothethis about the nature of whatever is causing that discrepancy.

Yeah, a "nutshell" like Zwicky.

It's like seeing light without a source, and then coming up with a hypothesis about what might be causing it. Dark matter is the same: we see the effect

So tell us how the "effect" has actually been "measured". Air brushed pics with blue halos inserted?

The notion that present mainstream gravitational understanding was effectively falsified with discrepancies in large scale astronomical observations, assumes that it is invalid to use such understanding, to make inferences about the presence of more mass-energy than is easily observable,… as if plasma cosmology or electric universe or whatever, does not make inferences themselves [like mainstream scientists are idiots and nutshells].

It principal, it 'might be' that there are other effects than gravity at play, …. But it makes less sense to toss aside a validated understanding rather than let that understanding make predictions,… which of course is the point of theories. If no DM can be found, THEN alternatives will have a chance, not before.

'As of 2016, the vast majority of researchers openly reject plasma cosmology because it does not match modern observations of astrophysical phenomena or accepted cosmological theory.'

It principal, it 'might be' that there are other effects than gravity at play, …. But it makes less sense to toss aside a validated understanding rather than let that understanding make predictions,… which of course is the point of theories. If no DM can be found, THEN alternatives will have a chance, not before.

I prefer to keep an open mind: UNTIL DM is found, alternatives have a chance.

However there are several threads of reasoning that support DM, (including galaxy rotation, cluster lensing, galaxy cluster formation, and total mass/energy for a flat universe), so right now DM is the front runner.

In contrast while the galaxy rotation on its own actually requires fewer tweaky parameters for MOND than for DM, I haven't YET seem a detailed MOND argument for galaxy cluster evolution or total mass/energy.

And while I haven't yet seen a detailed non-gravitational argument for any of them, I am open to the possibility that it MIGHT exist.

In contrast while the galaxy rotation on its own actually requires fewer tweaky parameters for MOND than for DM,

What "galaxy rotation" are you talking about? Do you even know that Rotation Curves cannot be applied to most of the galactic mass in the Universe? That's right, they are not applied to Elliptical type galaxies which make up 2/3 of the mass of the Universe. Did you even know that?

Do you even know that the galaxy that is the center of our local cluster is an Elliptical that is 100-200 times the size of our Milky Way?

Spiral galaxies make up only 1/3 the mass of the Universe. The radial arms of Spirals orbit at a rate of 100-300 km/sec, our Sun is 240 km/sec. The outer orbital stars of Ellipticals by contrast to Spirals orbit a rates as low as 2 km/sec & almost none reach a rate even close to the slowest Rotation Curves of Spiral Galaxies.

With the invisible and elusive for the scientific equipment fictional phenomena like dark matter and energy, black holes and neutron stars, hiden dimensions and space fluctuations, unlimited space flexibility, the modern metaphysicians are trying to support on artificial respiration long ago compromised theories with the sacred cows status. They add needed matter and energy in the formulas of this theories to obtain more closer to the observed physical reality. If the results are not satisfactory they are trying to change physical reality instead of sacred theories. But science does no works in this way. Thats why this is pure religion.

So you've been looking at airbrushed pics of Ellipticals with all those inserted blue halos. That's your new MODEL for "nutshell" Zwicky & his zany brainchild? Models of airbrushed pics are not MEASUREMENTS.

Neither are modeled airbrushed pics a substitute for CALCULATIONS, whereby gravity fields of any MASS can be calculated using Einstein Field Equations based upon the Visible Mass of a stellar body.

Upon calculating the gravity field based on the Visible Mass of the Sun, Einstein calculated Photon Deflection (gravitational lensing) within 0.02% of error when it was actually MEASURED a few years later, whereby proving there is none of Zwicky's DM cosmic fairy dust making up 80-95% of our solar system (including "ants").

Einstein proved through his Photon Deflection Calculations that our spiral arm of the Milky Way has zero Missing Mass, you prove otherwise.

you really should read those studies i linked... it actually talks about elliptical galaxies

that is why evidence trumps making sh*t up as you go and why your fail is so epic

You're just another one of those "slash nutshells", so why would I want to click on any the phishing links you put up?

All I need are the Einstein Field Equations & Calculations for Photon Deflection, from that point I can do the rest of the math for myself, I'm not like you who needs someone smarter than yourself to explain the CALCULATIONS & MEASUREMENTS versus OBSERVATIONS.

What "galaxy rotation" are you talking about? Do you even know that Rotation Curves cannot be applied to most of the galactic mass in the Universe? That's right, they are not applied to Elliptical type galaxies which make up 2/3 of the mass of the Universe... Did you even know that?

Rotation curves CAN be applied to elliptical galaxies - it is just not very interesting to do so in most cases.

For the rest, I'll repeat some of my comment from our last exchange on this:

... the question of whether ALL galaxies have rotation curves is semantic. In some ellipticals the bulk rotational velocity is low enough that the 'rotational curve' is almost a flat line at zero, but as someone pointed out earlier, mathematically a flat line is still a curve (but a non-technical person might not call it a curve).

However in such ellipticals the stars individually still have significant velocities, so in this case the 'velocity curve' is more useful to study......In addition to rotation being much less important for most ellipticals, the rotation is also much harder to measure. Not only is this partly BECAUSE it is less important (dominated by motions other than bulk rotation), but also because one of the ways to measure the velocity uses large gas clouds and ellipticals typically have many fewer of these than spiral galaxies do.

So the rotation curve in ellipticals is less important, harder to measure, and is often a degenerate curve

So clearly I know this, and it should be obvious that the 'galaxy rotation' that I am talking about refers to GALAXIES THAT ROTATE.

BTW, in the comment you are criticizing I state that "galaxy rotation on its own actually requires fewer tweaky parameters for MOND than for DM", so I am not a DM-only person.

I'm not like you who needs someone smarter than yourself to explain the CALCULATIONS & MEASUREMENTS versus OBSERVATIONS

and yet i can figure out how to point out that you have no evidence while linking observation AND calculations which refute your claim?

but you're the smart one?LMFAO

and you can't see the incongruity of that statement you made?

PS - the top three "phishing links" you hate are from Harvard... the others are arXiveall are peer reviewed (unlike your claims)Are you saying you're smarter than the bulk of the ASTRO community while not having a single published peer reviewed study under your belt?

Upon calculating the gravity field based on the Visible Mass of the Sun, Einstein calculated Photon Deflection (gravitational lensing) within 0.02% ... whereby proving there is none of Zwicky's DM cosmic fairy dust making up 80-95% of our solar system (including "ants").

I already pointed out to you in another thread that Einstein used the mass of the sun as determined by the orbits of the plants (which would include any DM), and not the 'visible mass' (which we can't even determine TODAY to within 0.02%).

And I already pointed out in this thread that the main DM theories do NOT claim 80%-95% DM in the solar system (or an ant). They typically have a local average the equiv of 1 atom per 10 cm3 in our neighborhood, or 24 orders of magnitude less dense than an ant!

The "DM is 80% -95% of every individual thing" you keep arguing against is just YOUR OWN straw-man DM theory (I have never heard ANY DM advocate say ANYTHING like that).

Oh Nou:"It principal, it 'might be' that there are other effects than gravity at play, …. But it makes less sense to toss aside a validated understanding rather than let that understanding make predictions,…which of course is the point of theories. If no DM can be found, THEN alternatives will have a chance, not before."Do you understand the idea that you cannot prove a negative? If Dark Matter is not there, you can look FOR EVER and still not find it! you had Better start looking at other alternatives, ones that are actually cheaper to check out...Oh, Right, cannot even Think of 'Less Funding' lest it actually happen.Considering the bad luck DM Conspiracy Theorists have been having I would think that a combination of Plasma Cosmology with magnetic stars like our modest sun, and the well known plasma seen carrying the magnetic fields hundreds of thousands of light years across. It is not just This Galaxy, but across the entire observable Universe we see the plasma/star web.

Do you understand the idea that you cannot prove a negative? If Dark Matter is not there, you can look FOR EVER and still not find it!

Not necessarily, as it could in principle be ruled out by inference, as was the Higgs boson at various energies. However, I think your point as quoted is valid and I actually prefer RealScience response better than my own.

I'm not proposing that DM be searched for forever, only that reasonable searches be exhausted before considering otherwise validated theories defective, as doing so is more of a leap of faith imo than the reasonable hypothesis that there is gravitational mass-energy for which man has yet to interact with.